The benefits of the saying of Allah the Exalted: >

Then Allah (Mighty and Majestic) said: [Al-'Ankabut: 47] It is derived from this verse that the Qur'an is revealed from Allah , and that it is His speech, due to His saying: , and that it is His speech in its letters, due to His saying: . What is written is the letters. Accordingly, the Qur'an is the speech of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in its letters and its meanings, all of it being the speech of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). We previously mentioned in the tafsir that the Asha'irah and those who follow their path say: The speech of Allah is the meaning subsisting in the Self, and these letters are created, being an expression of it or a narration. They say "expression" (ibarah), while the Kullabiyyah, the followers of 'Abd Allah ibn Sa'id ibn Kullab, upon whom al-Ash'ari studied, say: It is a narration (hikayah) of the speech of Allah, not an expression. As for the people of the Sunnah and the community, they say: It is the speech of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) in reality, not a narration or an expression.
Now, His saying: indicates that the Noble Qur'an is written. We mentioned that it is written in three places, which are Ibrahim!
The student: The Preserved Tablet and the scrolls

The Shaykh : The Preserved Tablet and the scrolls in the hands of the angels, and the mushafs in the hands of... Now, what is the evidence that it is written in the Preserved Tablet?
The student:

The Shaykh : Yes, and that it is written in the scrolls, 'Abd al-Rahman!
The student:

The Shaykh : As for its being written in the mushafs, what is the evidence?
The student: It is clear

The Shaykh : This does not require evidence because this is clear. Yes.
And among the benefits of the Noble verse is His saying: That among the People of the Book are those who believed in it in reality, due to His saying: . The meaning is some, like whom?
The student: 'Abd Allah ibn Salam

The Shaykh : 'Abd Allah ibn Salam .
Now, from this verse it is derived that one may cite the unseen as proof for the truth of the claim, or not? That a person cites others from his opponents? ... , and this verse says: "Who among you who was given the Book, you Jews or Christians, believed in this Qur'an?" This argument is very useful in debate, to argue against a group by the statement of some of their scholars. For this reason, Shaykh al-Islam and others argue, for example, against the philosophers by the statement of some of their thinkers. He argued against the falsity of the school of the theologians (mutakallimin), for example, by the statement of al-Razi, who is one of their great ones. He said:
The end of the intellect's progress is a rope, and most of the scholars' effort is misguidance
And our souls are in loneliness from our bodies, and the end of our worldly life is harm and calamity
And we did not benefit from our research over our long life except that we gathered in it "they say" and "they said"
And is this a great benefit or not? This is not a benefit What is this? The point of such a thing is that the man himself speaks these verses, either reciting them or composing them, but he preceded them with words saying: "I have considered the paths of the theologians and the methodologies of the philosophers, and I did not find them to quench thirst or cure the sick. And I found the closest path in that to be the path of the Qur'an: I read in affirmation and I read in negation . And whoever has experienced what I have experienced knows what I know." Yes, this is explicit in that the man acknowledged for himself that all these philosophical schools have no good in them; they do not cure the sick nor quench thirst. So arguing against a group by the statement of their leaders is one of the strongest arguments, and the Qur'an followed this path as in this verse and others. Is it clear?
Now, and among the benefits of the verse is that among the polytheists, or more correctly, among Quraysh, are those who believed in the Qur'an, due to His saying: . This becomes an argument against those who did not believe. And I think you know that among the nobles and dignitaries of Quraysh, those who preceded to Islam, like whom? Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) was among their nobles, and they referred to him for knowledge of lineages and genealogies, and he was also known for generosity. So his descriptions (may Allah be pleased with him) are like the descriptions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): he bears the burden, and likewise, yes? He helps in the emergencies of the truth. And despite that, he was the quickest of people to believe in the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) . So why do you deny, when among you are those who believed?
And among the benefits of the verse is that whoever denies the verses of Allah is a disbeliever, due to His saying: . Now, does this include denying the verses in general, or even their individuals?
The student: Even their individuals

The Shaykh : Even their individuals, meaning it is not necessary to deny the entire Qur'an. For example, if he denies some of it and affirms some of it, he is judged as a disbeliever, as Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) said: . So whoever believes in some and disbelieves in some, we know for certain that his faith is not true. If his faith were true, there would be no difference between what he believed in and what he disbelieved in. Rather, it is merely for his desire. So whoever denies something of the Islamic Shari'ah is a disbeliever, even if he believes in some of it. But note that this is conditioned by knowledge. If knowledge is absent and he denies it because of his lack of knowledge, he does not become a disbeliever until the truth becomes clear to him. Because Allah says: [An-Nisa: 115]. And He also says: . So when He makes clear to them what they should fear, and they do not fear it, then at that time they are judged as misguided. As for Him (Exalted and Majestic is He) misleading them before making clear to them what they should fear, this is not possible, because it is not what the wisdom and justice of Allah require. And He (Glorified and Exalted is He) says: . And He (Glorified and Exalted is He) says: . The scholars took this into account and said: Whoever grows up in the desert or in a land of disbelief and denies what is known to Muslims by necessity, he does not become a disbeliever until he is informed of it. So when he is informed of it and it becomes clear to him, and then he denies it, at that time he becomes a disbeliever. And this is a matter that we, our brothers, must reflect upon, because some of the brothers who are zealous for their religion judge with takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever) in an absolute manner, and this is an error. For it is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) . Also, the judgment of takfir is a judgment from the judgments of Allah. Because your saying about this man that he is a disbeliever is like your saying about this food that it is forbidden or that it is lawful. Who has the right to judge with takfir and faith? Allah. So it is not permissible for you to declare a disbeliever except one whom Allah and His Messenger have declared a disbeliever. Nor is it permissible for you to declare an open sinner except one whom Allah and His Messenger have declared an open sinner. The matter is not up to you. The judgment over the servants is in the hand of their Creator (Glorified and Exalted is He). If He judges them with disbelief or open sinfulness, then judge with that; otherwise, do not. Likewise, one of the conditions of takfir is that there be no obstacle to it. If there is an obstacle to takfir, he is not declared a disbeliever, because knowledge is a condition. Knowledge of what necessitates disbelief is a condition, and the absence of an obstacle is a condition. If there is an obstacle that prevents takfir, he is not declared a disbeliever. And the obstacles are many, among them is coercion. If a man is coerced into disbelief and his heart is at rest with faith, what do you say, Ya Husayn?
The student: He does not become a disbeliever

The Shaykh : He does not become a disbeliever by the text of the Qur'an and the consensus of the Muslims. Also, there must be no obstacle between his will, meaning there must not be an obstacle that prevents his will and intention, so that the disbelief comes out of him without intention. If the disbelief comes out of him without intention, does he become a disbeliever or not? He does not become a disbeliever, even if it is explicit disbelief like the sun, as long as it is without intention. For example, if he is angry with extreme anger, or happy with extreme happiness, or afraid with extreme fear, and he utters disbelief without intention, then there is no doubt that he does not become a disbeliever. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said regarding the happiness of Allah with the repentance of His believing servant, that it is like a man who lost his camel, and on it was his food and drink, so he did not find it, and he slept under a tree waiting for death. Then he woke up and found the rein of his camel hanging on the tree, so he took the rein and said out of extreme happiness: "O Allah, You are my slave and I am your Lord". What do you say about this word? Disbelief or faith?
The student: Disbelief

The Shaykh : Disbelief means, for example, if he said: "You are my slave" only, that would be disbelief. How is it that he said: "You are my slave and I am your Lord"? He also claimed lordship for himself and servitude for his Lord. But he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . So the conclusion from these issues is: It is obligatory for us to say that declaring someone a disbeliever requires the presence of conditions and the absence of impediments. This matter—meaning considering the presence of conditions and the absence of impediments—is not specific to the issue of declaring someone a disbeliever. I think we all know that it is general, or not? All things are not completed except by the presence of their conditions and the absence of their impediments. Now... this issue that the brother Abd al-Rahman mentioned: if someone claims ignorance, and someone like him would not be ignorant of it, is that accepted? He says: "By Allah, I did not know that this, for example, is obligatory. If I had known it was obligatory, I would not have denied it." We say: Praise be to Allah, if you say this, then you have now repented, as long as you say: "I did not know it was obligatory, and if I had known it was obligatory, I would not have denied it." Now you have affirmed it, clear? But if he denied it outright, before we demand it of him, if someone like him would not be ignorant of it, then he is a disbeliever. If he denied the prohibition of unlawful sexual intercourse, and he grew up in conservative Islamic lands, a person who grew up, for example, in conservative Islamic lands that prohibit unlawful sexual intercourse and grew up there, and said: "Unlawful sexual intercourse is lawful," what do you say? This person is not excused, because he grew up in conservative Islamic lands. In Islamic lands that are lax, where the markets for unlawful sexual intercourse are open, and he denied the prohibition of unlawful sexual intercourse, is he excused?
The student: He looks...

The Shaykh : Yes, this is a person who lived in these lands and saw that there are markets for prostitution that permit unlawful sexual intercourse, and he did not know. We say: Yes, as long as there is a doubtful matter, then the fixed punishments are averted by doubts, and the Muslim person is a Muslim, and we cannot take him out of Islam except with certainty. The student: ...

The Shaykh : Regarding the prohibition of unlawful sexual intercourse? If he did not know about it? If he knew about it, how would he say: "I am ignorant..."? If it is that unlawful sexual intercourse is known now, the prohibition of usury or interest, if a person grew up in lands that are all, for example, usurious, dealing in usury or interest through banks and others, and said: "By Allah, I do not know that it is forbidden", could this be true? We say: It is possible that a person, if he lived in something he did not know about. Now, for example, those who grew up in lands where their scholars adopt the path of the Ash'ari theological school, do you know that they do not know anything about the methodology of the people of the Sunnah and the community? They think that this is the truth, until some of them write and say: "The methodology of the people of the Sunnah and the community is limited to the methodology of the Ash'ari theological school and the Maturidi theological school," because he is ignorant. And this is a great affliction. The issue of ignorance, yes?
The student: O Shaykh! Is one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence excused? Because he has become, meaning, a student of knowledge.

The Shaykh : Yes, he may be excused, my brother, if the scholars of these lands are on this path and there are no books for him to read. This is of the same kind as one who lived in lands of disbelief and did not have books from the people of Islam. The ignorance is the same, because it may not occur to them at all that there is a third methodology between the two methodologies. It does not occur to him. We now have, among the common people, or rather, let us return to the common people among the students of knowledge, they think that there is no methodology except the Hanbali school. Until some of them were asked in the presence of King 'Abd al-'Aziz (may Allah have mercy on him) long ago. Some of the common people were told: The King was joking with him. "What is the methodology of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)?" He said: "The methodology of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is Hanbali, Qurs." And what does he know? He thinks there is no path in the world except the path of the Hanbalis. The important thing is that these issues of ignorance have no limit. And praise be to Allah, as long as a person can find an exit from declaring a Muslim a disbeliever, take it. But if he persisted and was stubborn, that is another matter.